In article <[log in to unmask]>, Ted
Harding <[log in to unmask]> writes
>On 18-Sep-03 Ian Bowns wrote:
>> In article <200309170959256.SM00281@IM02>, Roy Poses
>> <[log in to unmask]> writes
>>>But how would you judge what evidence is the "best available?" Why try
>>>to find the best available evidence unless best available means most
>>>likely to reflect the truth?
>>
>> Forgive me, but I cannot resist commenting. The example cited of
>> quantum mechanics and Newtonian seems apt to me. As Popper suggested
>> (in 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery'), I think that science
>> progresses by falsification of hypotheses, not their verification. We
>> improve on the breadth to which the available theories are applicable
>> by finding their limits through falsification. I see many theories we
>> have not (yet) falsified, but am not sure that any will stand forever.
>
>And forgive me but I cannot help going further down this side-path!
>
>The statement "I think that science progresses by falsification of
>hypotheses, not their verification." is, I think, incomplete. Better and
>more accurate, it seems to me:
>
> "Science progresses by falsification of hypotheses, not their
> verification, and putting something better in their place."
>
Agreed.
--
Dr Ian R Bowns FFPHM
Honorary Senior Research Fellow
Health Policy and Management
School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR)
University of Sheffield
Regent Court
30 Regent Street
Sheffield
S1 4DA
Tel; 0114 2220742
Fax; 0114 2220798
Mob; 07793 886943
E-mail; [log in to unmask] (work)
E-mail [log in to unmask] (home)
|